History shows a vote to change parties is the best way to force a shift in policy

Published 8:00 pm, Thursday, March 20, 2008

By CARL P. LEUBSDORF

WASHINGTON -- For the third time since World War II, Americans are picking a new president amid sharp national divisions over a bloody, financially draining war in Asia.

In 1952 and 1968, the opposition party won the White House by capitalizing on anti-war frustration over stalemates in Korea and Vietnam and promising to end those involvements.

Now, as the nation enters its sixth year of the fighting in Iraq that began with the ouster of Saddam Hussein, Democrats hope to repeat that pattern.

But while there is considerable evidence they can do so, polls also show that attitudes are not clear-cut about the war that has killed and wounded thousands and cost hundreds of billions of dollars.

A majority of Americans think the war was a mistake. And while one poll shows an even split over whether to stay or leave, others show that the main division is over how quick U.S. withdrawal should be.

At the same time, the public thinks the yearlong military "surge" is making progress in curbing violence. Two surveys showed that the public thinks the candidate best equipped to handle Iraq is the one who strongly backed the surge and has echoed the Bush administration's warnings against an early troop withdrawal, Republican John McCain.

That may explain why McCain showed no hesitation in heading to Baghdad this week at almost the same time that Vice President Dick Cheney was there and echoing the administration's optimism over the situation in Iraq.

"The surge is working," McCain said. "We are succeeding." But he warned that al-Qaida is not yet defeated and that a continuing U.S. military effort is necessary.

McCain's rivals continue to draw sharp rhetorical lines between their calls for a phased withdrawal and his adherence to the administration's more cautious approach on U.S. troop levels.

Declaring that the surge has not achieved its goal of prompting political progress, Hillary Clinton says she would begin a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops within 60 days of taking office.

Barack Obama has promised to withdraw all U.S. combat troops within 16 months of becoming president.

Both candidates stop short of advocating total withdrawal of all American forces and concede that a pullout will take some time. Still, there is a clear contrast between their view and McCain's.

So far, the Arizona senator is benefiting from his long identification with the issue and his military background. But the political impact of Iraq next fall is likely to reflect what Americans want to happen in the future.

Given that, it's hard to see more voters favoring a slower rather than a faster pullout, especially independents whose anti-Iraq stance was a major reason they voted Democratic in last year's midterm elections.

Ironically, many both in and out of the current administration believe next year's reality will be different from this year's rhetoric.

They think McCain will have to cut the U.S. role faster than he says and that events and military advice will force the Democrats to move more slowly.

It's hard to see a President McCain moving faster than either Democrat, in part because Obama and Clinton will want to cut war costs to finance domestic measures such as health care.

Meanwhile, a related issue this fall could be the administration's effort to reach an agreement with the Iraqi government on a legal basis to ensure the continued presence of U.S. forces. The administration sees it as a way to preserve options, but many Democrats think it's an effort to tie the hands of the next administration.

Even if the country votes Democratic this November, concedes Sen. James Webb of Virginia, "it will be much harder to turn this thing around" than to continue the current policy.

But the lesson of 1952 and 1968 is that a vote to change parties will be the best way to force an eventual policy shift.